NAGARAJA RAO versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: [2015] 12 S.C.R. 424 · Decided: 16-01-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 424 
NAGARAJA RAO 
V. 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
· (Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2015) 
.JANUARY 16, 2015 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
C 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.31 -Accused 
convicted of several offences at one trial - Power of the Court 
to award sentence - Sentence to run "concurrently" or 
"consecutively" -Appellant, a postal employee -Allegation 
that while on duty he committed theft of a registered insured 
D parcel containing Gold Chain - Conviction and sentencing 
of appellant uls.381 /PC and also uls.52 of the /PO Act-
Magistrate did not mention as to whether both the 
punishments will run "concurrently" or "consecutively" -
E Conviction not challenged before Supreme Court -
Challenge confined only to the sentences awarded- Whether 
the sentences awarded to appellant u/ /PC and the !PO Act 
should run "concurrently" or "consecutively" - Power available 
uls.31 CrPC invoked by Supreme Court- Held: Interest of 
F justice would be sub-served by directing both the sentences 
awarded to the appellant to run "concurrently as firstly, the 
case is pending for a long period of 21 years; secondly, the 
two sentences imposed on appellant, arose out of one offence 
of theft punishable uls.381 /PC tried in one trial; thirdly, 
G provisions of s.52 of the /PO Act were invoked against the 
appellant as he was a postal employee; fourthly, the Gold 
Chain was long recovered and also handed over to the person 
concerned; fifthly, appellant was already dismissed from 
service due to impugned conviction; and lastly, appellant was 
H 
424 
NAGARAJA RAO v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF 
425 
INVESTIGATION 
suffering from heart ailment since long - Indian Post Office A 
Act, 1898 - s. 52 - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 381. 
Mohd. Akhtar Hussain @ Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti 
vs. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), 
Ahmedabad & Anr. (198&) 4 SCC 183; State of 
B 
Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali 
(2001) 6 SCC 311; Chatar Singh vs. State of M.P 
(2006) 12 SCC 37; State of Punjab vs. Madan 
Lal (2009) 5 SCC 238; Manoj@ Panu vs~ State 
of Haryana (2014) 2 SCC 153; Sawal Das vs. 
t.; 
State of Bihar (1975) 3 SCC 156 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
(1988) 4 sec 183 . 
relied on 
Para 17 
D 
(2001) 6 sec 311 
relied on 
Para 18 
(2006) 12 sec 37 
relied on 
Para 19 
(2009) 5 sec 238 
relied on 
Para 19 
E 
(2014) 2 sec 153 
relied on 
Para 19 
(1975) 3 sec 156 
relied on 
Para 22 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal F 
Appeal No(s). 104 of 2015 
Fram the Judgment and Order dated 25. 04.2014 of the 
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Revision 
Petition No. 924 of 2009 
Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Amit A. Pai for the appellant. 
T. A. Khan, Charul Sarin, B. V. Balaram Das for the 
Respondent. 
G 
H 
426 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is filed by the accused against the 
judgment and final order dated 25.04.2014 passed by the High 
B Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Revision Petition· 
No. 924 of 2009 whereby the learned single Judge of the High 
Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order 
dated 23.09.2008/01.10.2008 passed by the XVII Additional 
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in CC No. 2408 of 
C 1995 convicting and sentencing the appellant-accused for the 
offences punishable under Section 381 of the Indian Penal 
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and Section 52 
of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as 
0 
"the I PO Act"), which was confirmed by order dated 08.10.2009 
passed by the XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge 
and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore in Criminal 
Appeal No. 845 of 2008. 
E 
3. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. 
4. The appellant-accused, at the relevant time, (1.3.1992 
to 11.3.1993) was working as Sorting Assistant in Bangalore 
Packet Sorting Office, Head Record Office (Main Unit) at 
Bangalore. On the intervening night between 05.03.1993 and 
F 06.03.1993, the appellant-accused while on duty committed 
theft of a registered insured parcel bearing receipt No. 0127 
dated 03.03.1993 containing Gold Chain (V shape) weighing 
173.650 Grams worth Rs. 70,41 Of-which was sent by its owner 
from Ramavadi Post Office, Bombay for being delivered to 
G the consignee - Guiab Jewellery Shop at K.H.B. Road Post 
Office, Bang
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.